Fair Use

Occasionally I hear the “fair use”
defense made to excuse someone's breach of someone else's
copyright. Unfortunately, the word fair has
colloquial meanings that are different from the legal meaning of
the phrase fair use. Copyright law says you
can't copy certain software even though it may be fair to have a
backup copy at home. You can't create derivative works from certain
software even though it may be fair to build whatever programs you
want. You can't reverse-engineer certain software even though it
may be fair to be able to fix defects, ensure security and
interwork with your other software.

The law doesn't say that any licensing practice you find
distasteful or that you morally oppose can be ignored if to do so
would be fair. The constitutional foundation for the fair use
doctrine was described by one court this way:

The fundamental justification for the [fair use]
privilege lies in the constitutional purpose in granting copyright
protection in the first instance, to wit, “To Promote the Progress
of Science and the Useful Arts.” [Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8]
... To serve that purpose, “Courts in passing upon particular
claims of infringement must occasionally subordinate the copyright
holder's interest in a maximum financial return to the greater
public interest in the development of art, science and industry.”
Rosemont Enters. v. Random House, Inc., 366
F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385
U.S. 1009 (1976).

Under this formulation, fair use is a privilege and not only
a defense. Your right to make certain uses of copyright materials
is guaranteed by the Constitution in the same sentence that allows
an author to obtain a copyright on his or her works. The monopoly
that copyright law confers is a limited one, limited not only as to
duration but also limited as to the author's exclusive rights.

Congress codified the fair use doctrine in the Copyright Act,
17 U.S.C. § 107, to make it clear what forms of use are to be
considered fair. The statute lists “purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research”.

Whenever you see the phrase “purposes such as” in a
statute, be prepared for a debate. Congress obviously couldn't list
all purposes, so what other purposes will pass muster? For example,
copying your office word processing program onto your home computer
because you're only using it in one location at a time is not one
of the purposes listed in the statute, but can you argue that it is
like one of those purposes? Is reverse-engineering to detect
security flaws in software a form of criticism or research? Can a
teacher make thousands of copies of a software program available
for a course taught over the Internet? And as if that isn't enough
vagueness for a statute, Congress then proceeded to list four
factors to consider in determining whether a use is fair:

1. The purpose and
character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. News
reporting, scholarly research and teaching are examples of favored
fair uses of copyright material. Commercial use is not favored.

2. The nature of the copyrighted
work. The law generally recognizes a greater need to
disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy. To the
extent one must permit expressive language to be copied in order to
assure dissemination of the underlying facts, copying may be more
justified.

3. The amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
whole. Fair use is less appropriate if entire works, or
the most valuable parts of them, are copied.

4. The effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
If copying a work will prevent the owner of the copyright from
profiting from it, even if such profit is only potential, the
copying is less justified. This factor may tip the balance in favor
of fair use where there are no other known copies of the work in
existence, where the copyright owner is unidentifiable, or where
there is no ready market by which copies can be sold.

None of these factors is determinative standing alone. In
evaluating them, a court must undertake a “sensitive balancing of
interests”. Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody's Inv.
Serv., 751 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1984). So too, when you
seek to infringe someone's copyright, you should perform your own
“balancing of interests” analysis. Consider whether your use is
similar enough to one of the purposes listed in the statute, and go
through each of the factors, asking whether that factor balances in
your favor. If you can't convince yourself that you pass the fair
use test, don't infringe.

If you use open-source software such as Linux, fair use is
generally not an issue. An open-source license safeguards the
rights of anyone, anywhere, for any purpose whatsoever, to use,
copy, modify and distribute (sell or give away) the software and to
have the source code that makes those things possible. All uses are
licensed by the copyright owner, so you don't need to defend your
use with the fair use doctrine. This is yet another reason why free
and open-source software is better than proprietary software. With
proprietary software, be careful to have a valid fair use argument
if you do anything not permitted by the license. With free and
open-source software, enjoy your broad and comprehensive fair use
rights.

Legal advice must be provided in the course of an
attorney-client relationship specifically with reference to all the
facts of a particular situation and the law of your jurisdiction.
Even though an attorney wrote this article, the information in this
article must not be relied upon as a substitute for obtaining
specific legal advice from a licensed attorney.

Lawrence Rosen
is an attorney in private practice, with offices in Los Altos and
Ukiah, California
(www.rosenlaw.com). He
is also executive director and general counsel for Open Source
Initiative, which manages and promotes the Open Source Definition
(www.opensource.org).

As Linux continues to play an ever increasing role in corporate data centers and institutions, ensuring the integrity and protection of these systems must be a priority. With 60% of the world's websites and an increasing share of organization's mission-critical workloads running on Linux, failing to stop malware and other advanced threats on Linux can increasingly impact an organization's reputation and bottom line.

Most companies incorporate backup procedures for critical data, which can be restored quickly if a loss occurs. However, fewer companies are prepared for catastrophic system failures, in which they lose all data, the entire operating system, applications, settings, patches and more, reducing their system(s) to “bare metal.” After all, before data can be restored to a system, there must be a system to restore it to.

In this one hour webinar, learn how to enhance your existing backup strategies for better disaster recovery preparedness using Storix System Backup Administrator (SBAdmin), a highly flexible bare-metal recovery solution for UNIX and Linux systems.